Season Speculation, Trade Ideas & Discussion Pt. 1

nevetsov · Post #1581 » by **nevetsov** » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:54 am

You'd think we keep Peters active until Dudley gets back, which should be within 45 days. James too.

At that time, our active roster will be 14, and we can evaluate whether it's worth paying them NBA dollars to keep them as 13-14 deep guys, or drop them to the G-League, given Williams and hopefully Reed shouldn't be too far off. James probably has a higher chance of sticking due to the fact that Knight and Reed are out for more than 45 days and our guard depth is kinda thin.

YouTube · Post #1582 » by **Kerrsed** » Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:04 am

nevetsov wrote:You'd think we keep Peters active until Dudley gets back, which should be within 45 days. James too.

At that time, our active roster will be 14, and we can evaluate whether it's worth paying them NBA dollars to keep them as 13-14 deep guys, or drop them to the G-League, given Williams and hopefully Reed shouldn't be too far off. James probably has a higher chance of sticking due to the fact that Knight and Reed are out for more than 45 days and our guard depth is kinda thin.

I mean he already made the 1st cut, which is major, but IDK, i just dont see him getting any minutes. He's pretty much stuck behind 3 younger, more talented guys who we are trying to develop. What is his skillset exactly? All i remember is he is a PF that can hit 3's and thats pretty much it. Not known for rebounding or defense or passing skills or anything to do within the 3 point line. Am i right? Because if thats the case, he is very expendable as there are other FA players out there with more than just the one skillset that also have experience and a proven track record in the league.

mirv · Post #1583 » by **mirv** » Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:10 am

nevetsov wrote:You'd think we keep Peters active until Dudley gets back, which should be within 45 days. James too.

At that time, our active roster will be 14, and we can evaluate whether it's worth paying them NBA dollars to keep them as 13-14 deep guys, or drop them to the G-League, given Williams and hopefully Reed shouldn't be too far off. James probably has a higher chance of sticking due to the fact that Knight and Reed are out for more than 45 days and our guard depth is kinda thin.

The 45 days doesn't actually start until the G-league season starts, which is November 3rd.
So I expect both of James and Peters to be on the roster until then at least.

Mulhollanddrive · Post #1584 » by **Mulhollanddrive** » Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:46 am

We probably need them to reach minimum cap.

WeekapaugGroove · Post #1585 » by **WeekapaugGroove** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:52 am

I had read when he signed they had an agreement with James they wouldn't send him down to the g league. The plan would be to keep him the 45 days then have to make a decision. Not sure if that's still the plan though.

Sent from my SM-G930V using RealGM mobile app

bigfoot · Post #1586 » by **bigfoot** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:17 am

WeekapaugGroove wrote:I had read when he signed they had an agreement with James they wouldn't send him down to the g league. The plan would be to keep him the 45 days then have to make a decision. Not sure if that's still the plan though.

Sent from my SM-G930V using RealGM mobile app

That was the plan I read too. If the Suns decide to keep James its curtains for someone ... DJJ, Reed, Williams, Knight, ...

Mulhollanddrive · Post #1587 » by **Mulhollanddrive** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:52 am

Does the Knight injury exception create an extra roster spot?

We only have 2 PGs if James is cut.

Walt_Uoob · Post #1588 » by **Walt_Uoob** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:30 am

Mulhollanddrive wrote:Does the Knight injury exception create an extra roster spot?

We only have 2 PGs if James is cut.

Sounds like no, per some earlier posts.

Mulhollanddrive · Post #1589 » by **Mulhollanddrive** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:31 am

Maybe we really are keen to play Booker in a Harden role, 2 PGs seems very light.

Post #1590 » by **lilfishi22** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:48 am

I still prefer Booker to up his efficiency over his APG at this point in time. So I still want a PG next to him.

bigfoot · Post #1591 » by **bigfoot** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:37 pm

lilfishi22 wrote:I still prefer Booker to up his efficiency over his APG at this point in time. So I still want a PG next to him.

Small sample size but this preseason Booker was very efficient with a true shooting percentage about .620 and he had a fairly low turnover percentage. Advanced stats put Len, Warren, Booker, and James as the best players during the preseason. That was my observation too from watching the games.

Mulhollanddrive · Post #1592 » by **Mulhollanddrive** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:02 pm

All the stats on Booker suggests he needs to shoot more from 3 and less from mid-range.

His ratio was better this pre-season and showed in his efficiency.

WeekapaugGroove · Post #1593 » by **WeekapaugGroove** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:31 pm

Mulhollanddrive wrote:All the stats on Booker suggests he needs to shoot more from 3 and less from mid-range.

His ratio was better this pre-season and showed in his efficiency.

Totally agree. Not to sound trite but he simply needs to make more 3's too. Some of the improvement should come from better shot selection as he learns what spots work best and just avoiding some contested 3's; but some of that is simply the ball going in more. Conditioning probably comes into play because when your legs are dead that hurts your shot. So far he's kind of been a guy whose shot looks better than the results; what's kind of funny is Josh Jackson is the exact opposite where he makes more than you would expect with his form.

Saberestar · Post #1594 » by **Saberestar** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:44 pm

Read on Twitter

Bogyo · Post #1595 » by **Bogyo** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:03 pm

Cool idea to get him on this ad. This guy has been as class act as any politician I've ever seen.

Villalobos · Post #1596 » by **Villalobos** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:45 pm

Read on Twitter

Dang, giving up on your first rounder after one year. I remember the analytical draft guys were really high on him.

Post #1597 » by **bwgood77** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:50 pm

Villalobos wrote:

Read on Twitter

Dang, giving up on your first rounder after one year. I remember the analytical draft guys were really high on him.

Yeah, I was surprised. He was horrid offensively and shooting, but played decent defense which was supposed to be his strength with the length.

Saberestar · Post #1598 » by **Saberestar** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:33 pm

Read on Twitter

Post #1599 » by **ATTL** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:02 pm

Can't keep Jackson off the floor.

bigfoot · Post #1600 » by **bigfoot** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:47 pm

ATTL wrote:Can't keep Warren off the floor.

Fixed